@hpqp Zero you say. Even though I've just watched this new clip and the previous ones from last year - you somehow "know" I know "zero" about this movie. Wow, talk about putting your foot in it.

Why don't you reread my comment and carefully think about it. You'll notice it is a question - I made no statements or suggestions, and it was not a rhetorical question.

You should also notice that instead of answering or addressing my question you suggested I knew nothing about the movie - an attempt to obfuscate or redirect attention away from the fact that you did nothing to address my simple question.

So, back to my question. Is it the best way to do it? I won't be offended by an answer - I genuinely want to know what people think.

>> ^hpqp:

@harlequinn, you obviously have zero idea about what this film is about.

o let me confirm this... your answer is; yes, i know i am being rude, but it is an integral part of my religious viewpoint that i must be rude. Well, thank you for at least letting me know - i know now i can have no interest in your christianity. I am glad i have met other christians or i would leave this thread with a terrible viewpoint of your ilk.

My answer is, I believe the words of God over the words of man. I'm not sure why you expect me to compromise my beliefs and tell you something that I don't believe is true.

Do you realise that it is part of my viewpoint to see you as a silly, childish, scared and brainwashed fool? But do i accuse you of those things? No. Because i have respect for you (or at least i did), i accept that you may not conform to the mould. I choose my words extremely carefully sometimes even to the detriment of making my point clearly! All because i don't want to offend you.

I think it speaks volume that i, as an agnostic atheist, am more tolerant and polite than you, a theist. In the face of being called dishonest and insincere as well. You are not special, there is no excuse - you do not get special rules for calling people insincere; it makes you a bigot by definition (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). And your words confine your religion to bigotry. How can it not when you insult anyone who disagrees?

What possible respect could you have for someone that you believe is a "silly childish scared and brainwashed fool" except that which is empty and false? I prefer your honesty to your tolerance. You are incapable of offending me; I've heard it all.

If you cannot lay aside that bigotry, then we have nothing further to discuss.

I am obstinately and intolerantly devoted to the word of God. If it wasn't a scandal for you, you would be a perfect man.

The reason why i am not able to reply to certain parts of your posts is that you include bible quotes; these are utterly meaningless to me, and you may as well be reading me a vacuum cleaner instruction manual. Especially in a discussion pertaining to the validity of said document.

You virtually ignored everything I wrote, and looking back I count 3 scriptures.

I suspect that it is you who needs to go and study logic and maths - notice how i wait for you to demonstrate your ignorance of such subjects before i suggested this, a kindness you did not afford me. There are ways of solving uncertainties such as using occam's razor to demonstrate that evidence is required if you wish to propose a more complicated state of affairs. By suggesting that reality is changeable (from what i can understand of your loose grip on the subject, for example perhaps the gravitational constant changes depending on your position in the universe), you may as well suggest that gravity tastes like jelly - it has no basis and is rediculous to propose as a realistic alternative because it is utterly meaningless and offers an infinite spectrum of alternatives. You must have a reason to suggest it, otherwise it can only be considered as a philosophical exercise and as such is not scientific. If you have a scientific reason, then you're all good.

You entirely missed the point, and actually reinforced it with your assertion that it would be ridiculous to believe that law of gravity could change. The question is, why should there be a law-like order in the Universe in the first place? What evidence do you have that the future will be like the past? How do you explain the uniformity in nature? Where do you get the laws of logic from? These are things that you assume apriori without accounting for them.

If you think differently, then you are wrong; it is not a matter of opinion. Science (which is maths) is defined on those terms, something is either scientific or not. That is why many religious groups can't understand how outrageous it is to suggest intelligent design is taught in science classes; you may as well teach people how to read tea leaves to get to a solution in a maths class. Maths is a set of rules, and if you change those rules then it is no longer maths. Same goes for science. Your opinions do not count towards science.

There is good reason to believe that the Universe is designed, from the fine tuning of the physical laws, to the information in DNA. It is a better explanation of the facts. To rule it out I think is ridiculous and definitely not scientific. Ask Anthony Flew why he stopped being an atheist.

Finally i will say this; you rarely ever address my point or reply to a simple question. You seemingly always reply to an example rather than the point (which you did again even when i highlighted this oversight; the second reply was utter misdirection). You often subtly change the parameters. Perhaps it is not intentional, or perhaps that is also a necessary part of your religion.

I'm not sure i can make another polite reply, so i may make none at all; i have been insulted enough. I for one am absolutely certain that, if there is a god, god would not be happy with you walking around judging others. He or she is watching you right now, seeing you insult others in his/her own name.

I wouldn't call passive aggressive polite, would you? God isn't going to judge me for telling what His word says, which is what He commanded me to do.

Edit:
Actually, i saw you apologised for being rude. I'm sure in your mind you are forgiven by god. This must give you an incredible amount of freedom to be immoral. I am glad that i at least do not need a sword hanging over my head to be polite and fair. When i am rude to someone, it hurts me in my heart, and i can't just apologise and feel better; i carry it with me.

Everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong. Your guilty conscience is telling you that you've violated Gods standard of behavior.

>> ^dannym3141:

@shinyblurry

So let me confirm this... your answer is; yes, i know i am being rude, but it is an integral part of my religious viewpoint that i must be rude. Well, thank you for at least letting me know - i know now i can have no interest in your christianity. I am glad i have met other christians or i would leave this thread with a terrible viewpoint of your ilk.

Do you realise that it is part of my viewpoint to see you as a silly, childish, scared and brainwashed fool? But do i accuse you of those things? No. Because i have respect for you (or at least i did), i accept that you may not conform to the mould. I choose my words extremely carefully sometimes even to the detriment of making my point clearly! All because i don't want to offend you.

I think it speaks volume that i, as an agnostic atheist, am more tolerant and polite than you, a theist. In the face of being called dishonest and insincere as well. You are not special, there is no excuse - you do not get special rules for calling people insincere; it makes you a bigot by definition (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). And your words confine your religion to bigotry. How can it not when you insult anyone who disagrees?

If you cannot lay aside that bigotry, then we have nothing further to discuss.

The reason why i am not able to reply to certain parts of your posts is that you include bible quotes; these are utterly meaningless to me, and you may as well be reading me a vacuum cleaner instruction manual. Especially in a discussion pertaining to the validity of said document.

I suspect that it is you who needs to go and study logic and maths - notice how i wait for you to demonstrate your ignorance of such subjects before i suggested this, a kindness you did not afford me. There are ways of solving uncertainties such as using occam's razor to demonstrate that evidence is required if you wish to propose a more complicated state of affairs. By suggesting that reality is changeable (from what i can understand of your loose grip on the subject, for example perhaps the gravitational constant changes depending on your position in the universe), you may as well suggest that gravity tastes like jelly - it has no basis and is rediculous to propose as a realistic alternative because it is utterly meaningless and offers an infinite spectrum of alternatives. You must have a reason to suggest it, otherwise it can only be considered as a philosophical exercise and as such is not scientific. If you have a scientific reason, then you're all good.

If you think differently, then you are wrong; it is not a matter of opinion. Science (which is maths) is defined on those terms, something is either scientific or not. That is why many religious groups can't understand how outrageous it is to suggest intelligent design is taught in science classes; you may as well teach people how to read tea leaves to get to a solution in a maths class. Maths is a set of rules, and if you change those rules then it is no longer maths. Same goes for science. Your opinions do not count towards science.

Finally i will say this; you rarely ever address my point or reply to a simple question. You seemingly always reply to an example rather than the point (which you did again even when i highlighted this oversight; the second reply was utter misdirection). You often subtly change the parameters. Perhaps it is not intentional, or perhaps that is also a necessary part of your religion.

I'm not sure i can make another polite reply, so i may make none at all; i have been insulted enough. I for one am absolutely certain that, if there is a god, god would not be happy with you walking around judging others. He or she is watching you right now, seeing you insult others in his/her own name.

Edit:
Actually, i saw you apologised for being rude. I'm sure in your mind you are forgiven by god. This must give you an incredible amount of freedom to be immoral. I am glad that i at least do not need a sword hanging over my head to be polite and fair. When i am rude to someone, it hurts me in my heart, and i can't just apologise and feel better; i carry it with me.

>> ^ForgedReality:

I HATE THE WAY CANADIANS SAY "ABOUT!" Let's talk aboot something else. Let's redirect instead of answering a simple question, what do you say aboot that?


I hate how jackass' like you are compelled to create sentences.

I HATE THE WAY CANADIANS SAY "ABOUT!" Let's talk aboot something else. Let's redirect instead of answering a simple question, what do you say aboot that?

>> ^mas8705:

/me gets the giant axe ready...
Why do you hate me Siftbot!?
This is just one simple question that, I WANT TO AXE YOU!!!
but seriously, it does get hard to talk to other members when siftbot keeps interrupting, so either cut his lines down some or take him out please...


"Just do it." --Nike.

Excellent post. Remember also that 10%-30% of the (world?) population are sociopaths completely incapable of empathy.

>> ^kceaton1:

I usually assume most of humanity is full of many people that are incapable of compassion and more importantly empathy. Not only does it explain why women date assholes (most people are anyway, to some degree--unless as stated they have empathy), but also why women might also be "bitches" (or assholes). Simply put nobody gives a fuck about anybody else's feelings, really, unless their action can create direct repercussions that affect them or something they do care about. Empathy, unfortunately, seems to be learned by most people the hard way (and this of course affects the entirety of the "Human Experience", not just relationships): you get a very painful disease/syndrome/ailment/injury and have to LIVE with it. People just do not have high level empathy unless terrible things have happened to them (I'm sure there is the few exceptions).
Basically, women will date assholes because the majority of the population are. Men that are the stereotypical built-up, juiced, arrogant, confident, and usually ignorant bull-pup are what we are thinking about in these scenarios. Most of them, on their worse day, had a broken finger or did poorly in school. They lack the empathy needed to NOT be an asshole. It has nothing to do with anything else. Assholes are simply people that don't understand, people!
As I said age is most likely going to change that as they become withered and old. As they get diseases or finally have their genetic misfires take hold, like MS, Cancer, or AIDS. Or deal with their Type II Diabetes that forces them to eventually go in for dialysis and even later the removal of limbs to stave the finality of its ultimate toll on their life. Or those that can no longer pass the duty of hardships onto others, and must help their mother as she slowly dies with much needed around the clock help--requiring baths, medicine, feeding, clothing, 24/7 diligence--due to their degenerative "syndrome/disease" that will ultimately kill them and irrevocably change their son or daughter forever.
That is how empathy is gained and it is also how assholes become good members of the community. It's also the best way not to marry, date, or be in a relationship with one. Merely find out if they have had hardships in their life that have directly affected them (not others around them, it MUST happen to them). Ask them some simple questions, like: what has that event taught them about others and how did they think beforehand? If they can give you a solid answer--they are not an asshole.
Case closed.

I usually assume most of humanity is full of many people that are incapable of compassion and more importantly empathy. Not only does it explain why women date assholes (most people are anyway, to some degree--unless as stated they have empathy), but also why women might also be "bitches" (or assholes). Simply put nobody gives a fuck about anybody else's feelings, really, unless their action can create direct repercussions that affect them or something they do care about. Empathy, unfortunately, seems to be learned by most people the hard way (and this of course affects the entirety of the "Human Experience", not just relationships): you get a very painful disease/syndrome/ailment/injury and have to LIVE with it. People just do not have high level empathy unless terrible things have happened to them (I'm sure there is the few exceptions).

Basically, women will date assholes because the majority of the population are. Men that are the stereotypical built-up, juiced, arrogant, confident, and usually ignorant bull-pup are what we are thinking about in these scenarios. Most of them, on their worse day, had a broken finger or did poorly in school. They lack the empathy needed to NOT be an asshole. It has nothing to do with anything else. Assholes are simply people that don't understand, people!

As I said age is most likely going to change that as they become withered and old. As they get diseases or finally have their genetic misfires take hold, like MS, Cancer, or AIDS. Or deal with their Type II Diabetes that forces them to eventually go in for dialysis and even later the removal of limbs to stave the finality of its ultimate toll on their life. Or those that can no longer pass the duty of hardships onto others, and must help their mother as she slowly dies with much needed around the clock help--requiring baths, medicine, feeding, clothing, 24/7 diligence--due to their degenerative "syndrome/disease" that will ultimately kill them and irrevocably change their son or daughter forever.

That is how empathy is gained and it is also how assholes become good members of the community. It's also the best way not to marry, date, or be in a relationship with one. Merely find out if they have had hardships in their life that have directly affected them (not others around them, it MUST happen to them). Ask them some simple questions, like: what has that event taught them about others and how did they think beforehand? If they can give you a solid answer--they are not an asshole.

Case closed.

This is the original swiftboating... ronpauling...

We begin with two simple questions:

Why would he put out publications under his name without the slightest idea what was in them?
And if he didn't write the stuff, why hasn't he identified the author and revealed his name?



Based on comparing the writings and positions of Dr. Paul and several other people involved, it would appear the people responsible would be:

Murray Rothbard,
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My google quest began with this article and the comments in it, i have compiled my results:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed

------------------------------------------------ RESEARCH

HERE'S RON PAULS RESPONSE:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

-------------------------------

OK, fair enough. Now for a 1995 interview, go to 1:54, here is transcription with his interview proving that he knew newsletters existed, not all the content. In fact, he seems more concerned with finance:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

------------------------------------------------------

So what about that, he did have a newsletter? Did it talk about more than money, and did he author those writings? Well it gets more interesting..

this is from a comment here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/the-ron-paul-newsletter-and-his-jeremiah-wright-moment/#comment-152657

"Wish I had saved the links. This Dondero guy was supposedly part of a group of people that wrote the content of the newsletters (maybe seven different people), and that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were the main brains behind the content. Ron Paul wrote some of the content too (probably about sound money, lol). They have also hinted (maybe Rockwell did), that the writer of some of the extreme articles was now dead. It seems that multiple people from that time have died, but the most relevant is Murray Rothbard. He’s like a messiah to this sub-culture, and Rockwell would probably never spill the beans on Rothbard. The tone of the racially offensive parts does seem like it would be written by Rothbard. If you are unlucky enough to attempt to listen through one of his lectures on YouTube, you will notice his attempts at sarcastic humor, if you don’t fall asleep first.

Dondero: “Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement.”

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/02/1970s80s-libertarian-party-stalwart.html

“The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.”

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"

---------------------------

Ok now we're getting somewhere.. so what about Dondero, Rockwell, and Rothbard?

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

-----------------------------------
What about these mid 1990's interviews like this one from the Dallas Morning News:

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia. The comment about black males being fleet of foot came from a 1992 newsletter, disavowed by Paul.

Paul cited the study and wrote (NOT SAID): “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and “did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them.”

“He has, however, taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch,” Benton said. “They do not reflect what he believes in: liberty and dignity for all mankind. … Dr. Paul, renowned as a straight shooter who speaks his mind, has given literally thousands of speeches over the past 35 years, and he has never spoken such things.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

-----------------

And all the confusion because he wanted to take responsibility. .. and the real issue? Not with what he may have said, or how consistent he has been denying this lie, but merely:

"Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?"

it comes down to an EITHER/OR false choice:

Either Paul is so oblivious to what was being done in his name that this obliviousness alone disqualifies him for a job like the presidency
— or -
he knew very well that horrific arguments were being published his name and he lent his name to a cynical racist strategy anyway.

Is there not any other choice?

There is your answer. The GOP is trying to sow any and all doubt at any and all cost. The content of the newsletters is just convenient; they would have done this anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
-------------------------------------

So Why Smear Ron Paul? Here is why... and the answer may NOT surprise you:

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"

Please. It is VERY unlikely.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Thank you for your time.

>> ^shinyblurry:

They're very simple questions. How do you account for the laws of logic, which are immaterial, unchanging and absolute, in a material universe which is always changing?
How do you account for the uniformity in nature? How do you know the future will be like the past?

Look, the questions are all fundamentally flawed. Let me spell it out.

What do you think the 'laws' of logic are? If the material universe is so inconsistent, then why are the laws of physics consistent, and for that matter all scientific observations? In what way do you think the universe is changing? Certainly it's progressing in a sensible linear fashion, as dictated by physics and such. Your usage of the term seems to imply that gravity works one day and does not the next. How is anything inconsistent?

What are you comparing nature to, when you say it's "uniform" the question makes no sense at all. Things can be uniform, or irregular when compared to other things. What are you comparing nature to when you make the judgment that it is uniform? The question cannot be answered because it is based on a false premise.

I don't know the future will be like the past, but given that the laws of physics have remained constant for my life, and to the best of my knowledge all of recorded history, and that observation leads me and scientists to conclude that it was always thus (except, perhaps prior to the big bang) it would be silly to assume things would suddenly change. About as silly as believing in something with no evidence for its existence.

They're not 'difficult' to answer. They're impossible to answer because they don't actually make logical sense. The fact that you think they do make sense is actually kind of disturbing.

They're very simple questions. How do you account for the laws of logic, which are immaterial, unchanging and absolute, in a material universe which is always changing?

How do you account for the uniformity in nature? How do you know the future will be like the past?

It is not a 'leap of faith' to disbelieve that which cannot be proved. If you'd paid attention before (I know it's hard, but try) you'd have realized that your argument leads to madness. If you insist on believing in God, and your sole argument is that the existence of God cannot be disproved, then you should, by all right believe in every single bit of nonsensical information which comes along. Why do you take the stairs out from your apartment building instead of flying out the window? You can't prove that you cannot fly to work by flapping your arms (or, you can, but only if you try). You cannot prove that bashing your head with a hammer is bad for your health (again, not without trying it). The list of things you cannot disprove is infinite. Why choose that one and reject all the others?

You seem to have trouble following the conversation. My sole argument for God isn't that He cannot be disproved, my evidence for your faith in atheism is that He cannot be disproved. You outright deny God exists and you have no evidence for it, therefore it is a leap of faith.

You have not proved your case, no matter what you seem to think, and no amount of word salad will help you.

Unless you have something cogent and substantive to add I am done. Go hit yourself in the head with a hammer if you want to prove me wrong.

You've proven my case for me. You've admitted yout blind faith in atheism, and then you try to justify it by conflating the issue by saying belief in God is equivilent to belief in fairies, which is false. God has explanatory power, fairies explain exactly nothing. Then you try to trivilaize the question by equating it with any number of meaningless statements, which is also false. To ask whether the Universe has an intelligent causation is a legitimate question, and God is a legitimate answer to that question.

>> ^Drachen_Jager

First paragraph is interesting, and has 2 good questions in it. One, how can you trust something that comes from something that can't be trusted. Second is the issue of what rationality even is. And is it even possible to bring it into question, ever. These 2 questions are the prime questions in my own person philosophy, and mirror some of the greater minds of history, I am, after all, only a single man in the long history of human thought.

I too am but a man, limited and small, but hopefully I can bring some godly wisdom into this. Between the two of us, maybe we can reduce this down to size.

I think the first question is actually very easy to answer, not to say that I didn't struggle for an answer for a long time. It is hard to think of things like this completely unclouded. But, the answer remains very easy, for me that is. There is a famous logical fallacy called "Guilt by association" , or, the Hitler Card, or various other things *Reductio ad Hitlerum when being MR. Smarty Pants *. For me to have a problem with its emergent nature from nature; I would need to be able to make an argument against it based on its own lack of integrity, not its associations with nature. One shouldn't be to troubled making this failed comparison, I do it more often than I care to admit!

Yes, I believe it is commonly referred to as the genetic fallacy. That the conclusion is inferred based on a defect of origins rather than the current meaning. I would not condemn rationality on that basis alone, but I use it to show that necessarily in the secular worldview, rationality is not the invincible and eternal God it is made out to be; that it had very humble origins inside a petri dish. This is just to crack open the door of introspection.

To say the same thing over, an objects creation doesn't mean it is still only consistent of the properties that made it. One can see this in ourselves, we are made from inorganic material, and thusly, it isn't proper to say we aren't organic because we came from the inorganic. Also, when I combine things of 2 different chemical properties, it is likely that I will arrive with something with completely different properties from the other two. So both in the logical base, and the higher abstraction, we fail to condemn rationality, we must attack its merits if we hope to win!

You're right, not much is to be gained by this particular argument about rationality. We must go deeper and suss out what it actually is.

The way you went about trying to condemn rationality from my own starting point of naturalistic existence was, however, the correct way to go about it. What I mean to say is you didn't try to use reason to undercut reason, like the postmodernists do, but tried to show that the foundations, at is concerns my own world view, are unfounded at the base. Proper technique, but a flawed argument, IMO. Leaps ahead of some European thinkers though

Thanks. I am happy that you understand that this is about worldviews and their foundations, because that is really the heart of the matter. Many people don't seem to realize that their belief system is a lens through which they perceive reality. Jesus said this is the pivotal issue:

Matthew 7:24-27

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

The second issue of the first statement is that of rationality itself. What is it that we even mean! For myself, I have divided the term into several sub-terms to help me both think about it, and talk about specific properties of rationality. The 2 terms that I an other continental philosophers have used are Logic and Reason. Reason being the so call a posteriori method of thinking, which fall to the realms of science, and Logic; being the dubed A priori, or statements that are a necessarily true...or true without need for examination. You might of read many of my rants on how I do not trust A posteriori as a method for finding truth. It leaves itself to all the problems of induction that for my part, have never been resolved.

I agree that we can reduce rationality into those two sub-terms, Logic and Reason. So let's examine..

For logic, we have the laws of logic, which are absolute, immaterial and unchanging. Yet the Universe is material and always changing. There is nowhere in nature to point to the laws of logic, yet they clearly exist. I account for these because God is a logical being who is absolute, immaterial and unchanging. So where does logic come from and how is it absolute? I don't see how they can be accounted for in a secular view.

To analyse reason, I'll just ask a simple question. How do you know your reasoning is valid?

As far as "TRUTH" with a capital T, I hold that science and all inductive methods have ZERO claim to it, and because of the way I define knowledge (as true, certain, belief) also does not expand human knowledge. So, as an element of rationality, I don't not hold it to any great merit of truth. It is GREAT at understanding the universe as humans can experience reality, but only so far, and only so much, and never in the fullest nature as to be consistent with the word "Truth". ( Turns out, I don't explain that I believe in truth only as far as A priori methods can show them, I think any attempt to say A priori isn't a good way to think about things results in you using A priori logical statements to show it isn't true, thus thwarting the objection)

Now here is the elusive question, and the one that plagued me as an agnostic. As pontius pilate asked Jesus, what is truth? Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life, and He meant this in a literal sense. The way, is in, the only true path for all human beings. The truth, because He is the Creator and Logos. The life, because He is the source of life. Bold claims, to be sure. He claimed to be the foundation of all foundations.

Is there is a truth? Well, it is true that I typed those words "is there a truth?". It is absolutely true even though only you and I know about it (and anyone else reading this). If the record were destroyed and the witnesses were gone it would still be true. If the Universe were destroyed it would still be true. Nothing can ever change that I wrote those words; the truth is the truth. Even if someone went back in time and stopped me from doing it, it still definitely happened. So, absolute truth exists.

The question is, how can you know what it is? You can know the things you have done, and seen, to a limited extent, but beyond that it gets progressively vague. Senses deceive, and so do people. How do you know anything for sure? Well there are really only two alternatives.

To know the absolute truth beyond a doubt you would either need to be omnipotent, or, you would need to receive revelation from an omnipotent being. So you would either need to be God, or God would need to tell you directly what is going on. Everything else is just speculation. It is like a person living in a pitch black room, who goes round and round inside of it, and thinks it is the whole Universe, until God opens the door from the outside.

Side question..what do you think of this statement?: God is perfect.

I don't know that I have ever heard a good explanation about free will. I should point out, that even in my Christianity, I was a 5 point Calvinist. I never have accepted that this quazi-random thing called free will exists in any way, shape or form. In the end, it doesn't even matter, either.

I agree that this is outside our control, of course. My assertion is that it is impossible unless it is something that is given to us. There is no meaningful free will in a determinalistic Universe, which I think is the inevitable conclusion of materialism. Personally, I believe that God controls everything, but in regards to love, we have the choice to love Him or not.

Let me expand why I think that. For me, I don't have the Theological problem you do. I don't have to explain goodness or evil in terms of human choices.

It is pretty simple theologically. Only God is good. Therefore, everything God tells us to do is good. Everything God tells us not to do is evil. The only way to know goodness is to obey God, because we canot obtain to it on our own.

I don't even have to believe in good or evil, or even if I do think it is a "something that exists", I HAVE to remain agnostic about it in the same way I do God, reason being is there isn't really a reasonable way to go about forming the groups "Good" and "Evil". Is it good to tie my shoe laces, or to just slip my feet right inside that shoe! It seems that most of life would either be impossible to show its good or evil value, but even more problematic, why and how!?

You may not define it but I submit that in your conscience you know what good and evil is, and that you live as if they do in fact absolutely exist. It is an intellectual quagmire if there is no moral lawgiver; it is all relative and meaningless. Yet, the whole world acts as if there is an absolute moral standard, and our conscience tells us that, before our intellect kicks in, that some things are right and others wrong. That isn't just wrong to murder someone, it is absolutely wrong. The guilt we have from past misdeeds tells us that we have trangsressed a moral law. So if there is no good and evil, how strange is it that we live as though there is? It makes no sense unless there is an absolute moral law, and in turn, a moral lawgiver.

We can see this problem in Christendom itself, there is no "one way" to be a christian! That was ALWAYS problematic for me. If truth was as easy as being in the bible, then everyone, and I mean everyone would be the same type of Christian. It would be the logical outcome of such a perfect and holy notion of good and evil. So either Christendom is in my same problematic position of not knowing the difference between good or evil, or if that even exists at all; if it wasn't some problem we created to increase the suffering of the world (like good ol Man Schopenhauer though!)

It isn't as black and white as all of that. Remember in the bible that God did non-stop miracles in front of the Israelites and they rebelled against Him anyway. Remember that Jesus did even more miracles and they ended up crucifying Him. So, the problem isn't with God, or His Word, it is with human beings. If you put God on the right and Satan on the left, and you lined up all of the Christians in the world between them, their placement in the line would be determined by what percentage of their heart they had given to God. Whatever percentage they haven't given to God is run by the world and their desires, and the more true this is, the less able they are to interpret the holy scriptures. It is the reality of sin that has created all of these different interpretations and denominations. There is one truth, and billions of Christians imperfectly interpreting it. The fact is, only Jesus was able to lead the perfect life of obedience to the Father. We all have a teacher, the Holy Spirit, to guide us into all truth, but only if we listen to Him.

So in other words, being the result of atoms bouncing around off each other degrading the absolute randomness of choices I make isn't something I have a problem with personally. As it is, my own existence, even if planned by nature or God or even myself, still remains so far beyond my ability to grasp at even day to day instances of any particular situation that even that; planned or random I have no real guess as to the goings on of that day. Perhaps if I was an all powerful God, with absolute knowledge of all factors of existence and all properties of existence I might find reality a little tedious.

It is much bigger than our limited awareness, that is for sure. What I have learned is that there is no such thing as coincidence. Try eliminating that word from your vocabulary for a few days. You might notice some very interesting things.

As to the quote, I think it a little dubious. For instance, it relates thoughts to fizz of a soda. That is fine, but they also have a comparison to HOW similar they are to each other. For instance, 1 and 2 are both numbers. There isn't really a problem with them both being numbers at the same time, its a party yall, all the numbers get to the dance floor! However, even in their exact "numberness" of being all "numbers", they still have differences to each other, even while still being numbers! So while the "one"ness of 1 being one is still just a number, a number which is a number exactly the same way 2 is, their is also a difference between 1 and 2, and it is inherit to the way that both exist. In the same way that A=A, A!=(!A). The basic laws of identity and contraindication. 1 may be of some degree of similarity to 2, and likewise, Fizz to thinking. But there is also a degree of separation. One could say the same, on a high level argument, that both smell and touch are of the "Same" physical representation of an object. So while the object they correspond to has a oneness with itself, the individual properties of its oneness are unique and independent. And not just via the method of induction, but it is AUTOMATICALLY apparent and true that things that are different are not the same. So the comparison of the atomic nature of both fizz and thoughts is ABSOLUTELY true, but so are there differences. It is those absolute differences that I, personally, use in my own method of philosophy which I borrowed and adapted from my limited understanding of Phenomenology.

I think you kind of missed the point here. It is just an analogy to show that if our thoughts are just the product of some brew of chemicals and electricity, and you and I just happened to get different chemicals, then your doubt and my faith have nothing to do with what we believe. They are just the natural result of how we are assembled and nothing else.

As to the last assumption of my beliefs, I actually don't have the same material requirement for existence. I find the views of George Berkeley, that we all exist in the minds of God, as the one of MANY, near infinite, plausible methods we could exist metaphysically.

Sure, there are many ways to imagine this, and I've heard quite a few. I think the only two meaningful questions concerning this is..is there a God, and if so, has He introduced Himself?

One might also mockingly bring up the idea of a spaghetti monster, but I have ALWAYS found that to be extremely uncharitable with the way "NORMAL" theory is crafted.

The FSM has no explanatory power. You don't get a Universe from flying pasta. The only workable theory is one that could explain all the meaningful questions that we have. I find all of those answers in Jesus Christ.

My current understanding of the universe certainly allows for a God, in fact, I find myself leaning that way more than my atheist brethren. It was, for me, certain, though, that the God of the Christian variety didn't satisfy all the problems that I had.

What problems do you feel He fell short on?

So my metaphysical undemanding doesn't have to find its roots in matter. I don't hold that matter is all there is, or that matter ISN'T all there is. I think there is not enough evidence to say either way. Moreover, I don't know that such evidence could even exist, which is why I am not only atheist, but also agnostic.

Ahh, but if you're agnostic you cannot be an atheist. If you don't know if the evidence could exist, then necessarily you don't know that it couldn't exist either. To be a true agnostic is to have no bias in either direction.

I think we are most likely creatures that are good at doing what we do, and truth...absolute truth, isn't really valuable as far as not getting eaten by a tiger is concerned.

It would be very valuable if God could help you avoid the tiger.

As such, I think humans have very few tools for understanding truth, from a Gods eye view perspective. It is the great arrogance of man that most cranktankerous arguments between scientists and religious people have with one another. We really do have more in common than different...we really have no clue what's going on. 7000 years of human discovery, great monuments of technology and thought, and yet, the truth is still as elusive as it ever was.

As I was saying above, without being God, or having direct revelation from God, we are only chasing our own tails. If there is no God we will never know how it all began or what is really going on. What I believe is that there is a God who has revealed Himself through the person of Jesus Christ. That we can know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Hopefully, this huge wall of text has some merit and value, for I have written it while ill. I hope I have portrayed my message without the normal anger and hate associated with such inquiries. Of note, such pleasant conversations are truly all I exist for, if not for them, my life is worthless. As a person, I hope only to accomplish knowledge, and the pass that knowledge on to others. Nothing else really matters to me at all. Which is why, at times, I have lashed out at those undeserving because of the deep relationship I have with this type of endeavor. Imm'a let this fly now, and hope the typos don't completely obscure it, but I need to sleep.

I have enjoyed and appreciated your conversation. It certainly is a lot to chew on. I enjoy these kind of philosophical discussions; they have always been my bread and butter. I also appreciate that you are strictly concerned with knowledge, and how committed you are to it. I wholeheartedly approve of your endevour. Truth is what matters to me, second to love. When I was agnostic, I tied my brain into a million knots searching for it, and when I became aware there is a spirit, the mystery deepened 1000 fold. I feel I have found what truth is, which is the love of God, and I hope to share as much of that with you as I can.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK

@shinyblurry
thank you for your response..though in bullet form (blech).
i still find your premise a bit flawed but at least now i have a much clearer understanding where you are coming from,which is the nugget is was searching for.

the debate/discussion concerning politics can be boiled down to one simple question:what should we do as a society?
thats it.
i could go in to much further detail but that would make a comment in to a small novel and i am much more interested in your concluding statements.

you seem to be advocating a theocracy based on biblical principles to establish a religious based government.
the idea of something like that frightens me more than dealing with any single despot or tyrant and history has shown that theocratic rule is anything but righteous,fair or benevolent.
see:
dark ages.
the inquisition.
the crusades.
even as recent as ireland in the 70's and 80's.
when the church dominated the politics of europe,before the reformation,there was more :murder,rape,torture,oppression under an iron-fisted authoritarian rule than any despot could even HOPE to match.
all in the name of god.

freedom of religion is one the best and all encompassing tenants of american society because not only does it give you the RIGHT to worship how you choose but gives your neighbor the RIGHT to either worship under a different doctrine,or not at all.
the LAW is the great equalizer (and one of the things that is being corrupted and a main reason for OWS).

but you propose a theocratic government.
ok.
lets think about that for a moment shall we?
what about the hindus? or buddhist?
are they allowed to worship and pray as is their custom?
or will their be forced chrsitian worship and force them to behave one way in public and worship in secret and private under fear of...what?
what would be the government sanctioned punishment for not adhereing to christian dogma?
death? prison?banishment?
would you REALLY support the criminalization of differing religious beliefs?
is the irony lost on you that early christians had to do hide and skulk in fear of reprisal,even death,for even having the gospel in their midst?worshipping in dark caves in the middle of the night.

and what about catholics?
people banter about the word "christian" as some kind of badge of honor but what about differing theologies?
what if those "christians" are not the right kind of "christian"?
do we segregate the right kind from the 'wrong"?
or are those "wrong" christians just ostracized like a social stigma and we give birth to a new kind of racism.one not based on skin color but rather religious theosophy.

what about me?
you already know that i would considered an apostate to the christian church.
would you watch them burn me?
would you watch in horror as my flesh fell of me like melted ice cream and made yourself feel better by reminding yourself that it was gods will and if only i had accepted the "right" way to be a christian? why did i have to be so stubborn and not see god the way that you did.read the gospel the way you did? believe in the way you did?
would you watch?

and i have to say that i dont fully believe your sincerity when you say jesus would not choose sides,because you know full well that christ walked,talked and ministered to the underbelly of his society at the time.he broke bread with pagans,oracles,the diseased and unwanted.he railed with a savagery against the dominance of the church in his time,the aristocracy and the money makers.
he offered a hope and a freedom.a salvation from those who oppressed.
he pointed to the hill of those in power and told the disenfranchised "my father does NOT reside on that hill.you are NOT forsaken.it is THEY who pretend to hold the key that are lost...but YOU can be found.but not through them but rather through me".(paraphrasing of course).
he was the way and the light.

what makes jesus even more intriguing is that,contrary to a common misconception perpetrated by the church (of course).jesus came from an affluent family.
yes..he did.dont argue.
a carpenter now may be seen as common labor but back in jesus's day a carpenter was a craftsman.the ability to build things not only was held in high regard but was usually someone of affluence,wealth and influence.
how humbling is that?
jesus walked away from wealth,power and influence to bring truth to the poor,oppressed and enslaved and started a movement of his own 2000 yrs ago that slowly and totally underground became one of the most powerful messages even to this day.

now of course over the years those who sought power and influence saw the potential of jesus's message and took it over,perverted it and sold it as somehow being divine.
so not only do i think jesus would stand with those at OWS (and all over the world for that matter) i think he would rebuke the church as well.

oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

(Amount of people at OWS) x (% of gen. populace that are low lives) = the amount of low lives at OWS>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Let's see. This week alone there have been complaints (by the OWS crowd mind you) for the following things... Theft of personal property, arrests of people disrupting businesses, unsanitary conditions, public sex, voyerism, and one accused rape. OWS people have been filmed threatening others, making racist rants against jews, and bullying people who ask them simple questions.
And this guy says anyone who doesn't 'get them' is just part of some mysterious, invisible 'system' trying to keep them down. Whatever keeps you jazzed, I guess. But at some point the OWS crowd is going to have to accept that there is no man behind the curtain trying to crush them and keep the public from understanding the message that even this guy says is too vague to make any sense. They're doing a perfectly good job of alienating the public all on thier own.